23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Excuse me if I've totally misconstrued your arguments, Andrew, but in one breath you're decrying the control of wealth by a few in the case of Hunter Harrison, and in the next you're advocating control of wealth by a few in the case of Donald Trump. Which is it you want?
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Andrew, Just how much stock do you own? And , rude as this is, in what company(ies)? I own UP, and BNSF, and I do know the operational detail, quite well in fact. I check up on UP often, and am quite happy with the returns so far.... Major investors also keep track, and do research...not to many folks I know just throw a few million dollars into a company because the like the color of the locomotives... UP has a plan, and has been following it pretty good...they will be the biggest Class 1 west of the big muddy, its what we pay them to do. And if you want to repo UP, well, you better be ready to go after every railroad there is, most have, at some point in time, or in some manner, taken "goverment" money, and in some manner, defaulted on the "loan". As for the value system you hold so dear, well, with a small, contained population, limited immigration into the country, and a smaller goverment, it works...but surprise, if we even though about something like that here(think DHS, AFDC, WIC an TAFIN) just how big do you think the flood of immigrants into America would become? They already cross over to have their children here, so citizenship is given tothe kids, and then the whole family comes over to live off the public teet.... Trust me, I worked in the welfare fraud recovery division for my states goverment for a long time. Social medicine and support dosnt work, not in its current form, nor will it work in the form your describe, because, I, like most Americans, dont like paying for the up keep of those who choose not to help themselves... It would appear from this thread you, like many others world wide, seem to think that America, and her citizens, have pockets so deep we can solve the worlds, and our own, by paying for just about anything...just throw some money at the problem till it goes away... Which seems to be what you were griping about in the first place, the goverment threw money, in the form of land grants, at UP, so they would go away and leave them alone... Your condeming the goverment for cutting a deal with UP, then asking the same goverment to run everything? Hummmm Ed
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Excuse me if I've totally misconstrued your arguments, Andrew, but in one breath you're decrying the control of wealth by a few in the case of Hunter Harrison, and in the next you're advocating control of wealth by a few in the case of Donald Trump. Which is it you want? Thease men operate differently. I know where Donald Trump stands on business style. He is more interested in building; he said that on Larry King Live. I do not know where Hunter Harrison stands. As far as I want; if you can't figure out what the basics of my arguement is than you have not been reading my statesment all that well. I have made it quite clear that I expect railroads due to the fact that they are a mode of transportation, should be run as such. Although they must operate like a business, they must also except the responsibility that what they do doesn't just effect the company but the countries they operate. They have an obligation to maintain the business. Too many people worked hard on the railroad and many died for the railroad for over a hundred years. The railroad is not just a business it is a culture and the culture is of the nations it operates in. They are the final big railroads and it is up to them to help the countries sustain its economy. The railroads need help and they need some kind of support. The expression "the bigger they are the harder they fall" is true for any business and so needs to monitored carefully because if one of them falls, it will effect so many industries and workers that have anything to do with that railroad, their will be a terrible surge of unemployement and the economy will suffer. I don't know why you all can't see how dangerous it is for such large transportational networks like the class 1s to run the way they like. In the older days railroads were a dime a dozen. If one shut down there was others close by. The railroad is one of the most important solutions to alot of our countries problems with highway conjestion, air pollution, and other things. That is why I am not willing to say that trucks are the alternative because they are not the best answer to the problems of air pollution or highway conjestion. I hope you can see where I am coming from here, I don't know how I can make myself more clear that the railroads must not fall and that the survival of our economies may very well depend on the railroads' decisions.
QUOTE: Originally posted by agentatascadero Let's see: capitolism values Money, socialism values.... people. When capitolism "commoditizes" us all to the grave, where is the value of all the money which was made in doing so? Unfettered business is in no way user (spaceship earth) friendly.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I don't know how you do things in the U.S but in Canada public education work rather well. So does public health and some medicare. Ontario Northland isn't too bad and most of the hydro companies other than Ontario Hydro, are not bad either. There is alot of things over in Canada that run good or good enough by the government. In Ontario, liquor is distributed by the LCBO-Liquor Control Board of Ontario-so youths can't get easy access to alchol. We pay alot of taxes but it is worth it. You may pay alot of taxes in your life but heart surgury, children's education from Kindergarden to Grade 12, certain medicines are free. If it works for Canada who has a smaller population and less GDP than the U.S, why wouldn't work for a more wealthy country like the U.S?
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill What's to debate? The split would have to be compelled by the federal government. Since no law exists that authorizes that compulsion, that law would have to be created through a bill introduced in Congress, which would have to pass and be signed into law by the President. Then you'd be off to the courts to argue its constitutionality. As the U.S. Constitution is presently construed and interpreted, I am in great doubt that such a law would be upheld by the courts. The potential that law would have for creating mischief would push just about every corporation, union, and public advocacy group right into the courts, too. Or did you want us to set all that aside for the moment -- even though without that proviso all discussion is academic and fantastic -- and talk about advantages and disdvantages of a split? First, may I suggest it would be more appropriate to debate the existing law on mergers and anti-trust, and see if that needs to be modified in the general case, before we charge off into a specific case where we're likely to drown in detail of circumstance?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.